How did the hijackers manage to board the planes?

[nebula]

The names of the alleged hijackers do not appear on any of the passenger manifests.

The official story claims that the hijackers used forged or stolen passports with the names of Saudi nationals on them. But from what I can see, no Saudi or Arab sounding names appear on the airline passenger lists either.


Airline passenger lists:
Flight AA11
Flight AA77
Flight UA175
Flight UA93


So how did these phantom hijackers, who don't turn up in any records and the airlines themselves appear to have no record of them being on board, manage to get onto the flights? Perhaps they used some kind of advanced teleporting device?

[greyl]

1. Check the 11th link

here and tell me what you think.

[nebula]

3. The passenger lists published on the airline website

Show no sign of the alleged hijackers there either, or any Arab-sounding names.


http://www.united.com/press/detail/0,1442,10454-1,00.html
(Some victims do not appear on the lists, as requested by their families).




So do the airlines acknowledge having any record of the hijackers at all?

[greyl]

4. You didn't check the link well enough. Look again,

but this time be open to the possibility that you're incorrect.
That usually helps reduce Confirmation Bias.

[SidDithers]

6. I count 29 passengers named, out of 37 on board...

Flight 93.

I count and 43 passengers named out of 56 on board Flight 175.

The lists are not passenger manifests. They're not complete.

Sid

[nebula]

I understand they are not complete

The list is not complete because some victims' families requested that their names be withheld, as stated on the United website. That is why they are not complete. It doesn't say anything about intentionally omitting the names of the hijackers.

http://www.united.com/press/detail/0,1442,10454-1,00.html

[Brainster]

8. Survivors Have Requested Hijackers Be Listed Separately

Including April Gallop (Pentagon employee):

Don't include terrorists with the victims in the death toll. Separate them.

[nebula]

11. Then where is the separate list of hijackers?

It's not a matter of having separate list for victims and hijackers. It's a matter of the airlines not listing the hijackers AT ALL.

[Brainster]

12. Think About This For a Minute

You are proposing what I call the "sacred list" fallacy. Apparently now you believe that United and American Airlines are in on the coverup since they released lists of the passengers without including the hijackers. If they were in on the plot, wouldn't they have been smart enough to include the hijackers? In fact, the only CT reason for not including them is that somehow this is a sacred list that must not be changed. Participate in the coverup of a false-flag terror operation by the US government? No problem. Change a passenger list to help in that coverup? No way!

And there are lots and lots of these sacred lists. Some have pointed out that the airlines were rather sluggish in retiring the tail numbers of the planes that crashed. Once again, apparently the airlines are happy to collude with the government coverup of 9-11, but not to the extent of filing needed paperwork. The FBI's failure to include Osama being wanted for 9-11 on their poster? Hey, man, can't fool with the Ten Most Wanted list!

Does this notion make sense to you? Really?

[nebula]

13. What are you talking about?

You're not making sense.

The lack of a hijacker list indicates that the Airlines are not in on any gov't-lead plot. If they were in on it, they would have concocted a manifest that included the names of all 19 hijackers aboard and promptly handed it over to the FBI. But to their credit, the airlines did no such thing. And the FBI is in possession of no such list.

They're simply being honest. The airlines can't confirm 9/11 hijackers were actually aboard any of the flights, because their records don't show that there were any.

[Brainster]

28. So The Airlines Were Too Stupid To Notice There Were No Hijackers?

Either that or they noticed and hoped that somebody in the press would bring up the question, but they never did?

Which is it?

[Bolo Boffin]

2. They bought tickets.

They are on the manifest. Your link is not to the official manifest but to a CNN listing of their victims. It might have been a bad idea for CNN to list the hijackers next to the people they murdered, don't you think?

Well, anyway.

There is actual video footage of hijackers being let through security. The woman who let Atta onto the plane at Logan committed suicide over the act.

Stop wasting time.

[nebula]

5. The manifest lists the names of every passenger.

If the hijackers bought tickets, their names (or faked names) should appear on the lists as having been passengers of that flight. But so far they do not appear on any lists released by CNN or even the airlines themselves.

Do you have another list?

http://www.united.com/press/detail/0,1442,10454-1,00.html

[SidDithers]

7. Your link clearly states how many passengers were on each plane...

and then lists the names of a smaller number of passengers. The lists are not manifests, they're simply partial listings of passengers.

Sid

[nebula]

9. Yes, they are not complete lists

because as indicated by United, some victims' families have requested their names to be withheld, not because the names of hijackers have been intentionally omitted.

[nebula]

10. I would like to see

where, and if, the airlines have acknowledged the hijacker names being on their manifests.

Maybe they have, maybe they haven't. But if these hijackers really boarded onto those flights, then I'm sure the airlines would have publicly acknowledged it by now. But so far, I haven't seen any article or record of them doing so.

[jberryhill]

14. Since no plane hit the pentagon...

...then why would you expect the airlines to acknowledge what passengers were on the non-existent plane?

I mean, is there any consistency at all to what you believe?

I have not seen the airlines publicly acknowledge that the airplanes had wings, or that they had bathrooms, or any of a zillion facts which are self-evident to the airlines. If the hijackers are not on the airlines' own manifests, then among the many people in the airline organizations who would have access to their internal records, what would be surprising is that nobody in those large organizations, staffed by everyday ordinary folks, would have noticed that glaring fact.

You posted links to CNN in which the URL itself indicates that these are lists of "victims". The same sort of thing arose after Columbine, in which there were arguments over whether the two perps, who killed themselves, should be included in various memorials to the students who died that day.

What would be the REASON why one would even expect to find some official airline statement confirming that the hi-jackers indeed were on the planes? OF COURSE the hi-jackers were on the planes. The presence of hi-jackers is a necessary condition to HAVE hi-jacked planes. Now, if you are one of those remote-control drone plane, or no-plane folks, then I don't understand the point of quibbling over expressly "partial" lists of people on the planes from secondary sources.

If the hi-jackers were not on the planes, then it is a whole lot harder to conceal that fact from a whole lot of eyeballs in those organizations which were most certainly going over the manifests on that day than it is to, as noted above, insert the names. To put your expectations of reality in a different way then "if these hijackers really" DIDN'T board "those flights, then I'm sure that" someone in one of the airlines would have noticed that pretty much immediately. Keeping a lid on that kind of a thing requires the cooperation of a lot of people.

So let's say that, tomorrow, the airlines announce, "In response to a request made by 'nebula' on DU, United Airlines confirms that the named 9/11 hi-jackers were on the designated flights that day." Would that make you happy? No, it wouldn't. You'd simply say that the public acknowledgment is part of the cover up.

I fly a lot. Are you entitled to access to airline manifests, so that you can snoop on my travels? No, you are not.

How do you explain this:

[jberryhill]

20. YES, there are other lists

Why do you continue not to acknowledge that the Boston Globe obtained a genuine manifest, and produced this diagram:

[nebula]

21. Ridiculous

this is about the greatest terrorist hijacking in US history. no one gives a crap about your personal travel itinerary, but the public has a right to know who the hell were on those planes. the airlines have given no damn reason, legitimate or otherwise, why they have failed to release any statement confirming the identities of the hijackers, or released any records of such. unless they have something to hide??

what the hell is the big fucking secret?? the airlines haven't even attempted to explain why they're hiding the information. this is the biggest terrorist hijacking in US history, and the public has a right to know!

what the are we living in, a police state?? where everything has to be a big secret?? its fucking absurd.

[petgoat]

23. It's government business, and government business is none of

your business. Don't you get it?

[nebula]

24. Of course

its always been that way hasn't it?

[petgoat]

25. It hasn't always been that way. To a large extent Bush has created this

culture of secrecy, classifying more documents than ever before and
intimidating the media so they're unwilling to ask for the release of
information the public has every right to see.

If you haven't already, take a look at the petition to Congress for the
release of suppressed evidence. Almost 20,000 people have signed it.

http://911scholars.org/

[nebula]

26. No doubt

has gotten much worse under Bush.

[petgoat]

27. If memory serves, Bush withheld from the 9/11 Commission

3/4 of the CLINTON documents they wanted to see. 750,000 pages.

[jberryhill]

30. Do images not appear on your screen?

Or are you unable to find the boldface arabic names from the graphic of the flight manifest obtained by the Boston Globe?

The airlines are not allowed to release any information about whether I was on a plane to the public without my consent or the consent of my family.

Airlines do not release names of dead passengers until the family has been contacted. Whatever rights you believe the public has "to know", they do not provide a ground for violating the privacy of my data in accordance with the airline's policy.

You need to make up your mind about whether the airlines are in on the conspiracy. Earlier you said they were not in on the conspiracy because they didn't gin up a phony manifest. Now you are saying they are in on the conspiracy because they aren't releasing a manifest.

[SidDithers]

34. It's willfull blindness, jberryhill...

truthers are incapable of seeing evidence which contradicts their skewed reality.

Sid

[Andre II]

38. Flight mainfests

Why does a comparison of the flight manifests published by 8 main stream medias give 100 (!) names for AA 11?
That is 8 too many?
Why were the Larsons on the CNN lists?
Why did the FBI consider the Bukhari brothers on 9/12 to have been hijackers on 911?
Either their name were on the flight manifests then who used their names
or their names weren't then why the heck did the FBI believe they were aboard?
Same goes for Ameer Kamfar.

[petgoat]

15. Oh come on, bolo.

How do you know why the security person at Logan committed suicide, or even if
she committed suicide?

There is video footage from Portland, Maine; none from Logan.

The footage from Dulles shows someone who is alleged to be Hani Hanjour and
looks nothing like him.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. The woman who checked Atta through at Dulles committed suicide.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/11/193549/448

[petgoat]

17. Atta wasn't at Dulles. Atta was allegedly at Logan.

The guy on Oprah was the guy who checked Atta through in Portland, ME.

The woman who allegedly checked Atta through at Logan allegedly committed
suicide. You're alleging that you know the reason she allegedly committed
suicide. Your credulity is showing.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. I meant Logan, the second airport he went to that day.

I have no reason to disbelieve that man. I have ample reason to disbelieve you.

[G Hawes]

18. Again, this has to be a windup

"nebula" can't possibly the nonsense she spouts, can she?

[nebula]

22. No GHawes, I can't possibly believe in the crap you spew

[Contrite]

19. Wouldn't that have something to do with airport security?

Who controlled security at Newark and Boston?

[Contrite]

33. Why, yes, Contrite, I believe it does

It has been suggested that the incredible feat of hijacking four aircraft without a single arrest at the gate would require the resources of a nation-state. This is even more true with the revelation that at least one gun had managed to be aboard a hijacked plane.

But one thing is clear. By virtue of the Odigo warning, someone knew enough about the planned attacks to warn Odigo before the planes had even departed the airport gates, yet they did not call the Israeli security company at the airports which could have stopped the flights from leaving.

Think about that one for a while.


The Likud fundraising scandal culminated in the March 1996 conviction of three Likudniks, including Menahem Atzmon, Ehud Olmert's co-treasurer. As the party treasurer, Olmert was indicted in the Likud crimes but received special treatment and was acquitted.

During the 1970s Olmert had worked in the law firm owned by another Atzmon, Uzi Atzmon.

Menahem J. Atzmon went on to become the founder and head of ICTS.

Atzmon and his business partner Ezra Harel took over passenger screening and security at the Boston and Newark airports when ICTS acquired Huntleigh USA in 1999. Huntleigh USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of ICTS, a Netherlands-based aviation and transportation security firm headed by former military commanding officers and veterans of government intelligence and security agencies. Huntleigh USA is the airport security firm that ran passenger screening operations at the airports of Boston and Newark on 9/11.

United Flight 175 and American Flight 11, which allegedly struck the twin towers, both originated from Boston's Logan Airport, while United Flight 93, which purportedly crashed in Pennsylvania, departed from the Newark airport.

[Big Pappa]

35. Who

suggested that high jacking 4 a/c would require resources of a nation-state?

[Contrite]

37. I have read it in a few discussions on the net

The reasons being that the "hijackers" were on terrorist watch lists, triggered alarms, etc. The hijacking of planes is a national security issue. So how is it that these people were allowed through unless there were approval by persons on behalf of a nation whose security interests were at issue? This is from a report on CBS' website:

(CBS) Nine of the 19 hijackers who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks were singled out for special security screenings at airports that morning, U.S. officials say.

The disclosure that some of the hijackers triggered security measures differed sharply from previous portrayals of the hijackers as as meticulous planners who craftily avoided all detection.

Two of the hijackers were selected for extra scrutiny because of irregularities in their identification documents and six were chosen by a computerized screening system that prompted a sweep of their checked baggage for explosives or unauthorized weapons, according to authorities, the officials say.

The ninth hijacker was listed on ticket documents as traveling with one of the hijackers with questionable identification, according to the oficials, who declined to provide further details about the security screenings, including which of the hijackers were chosen and what flights they were on.

Authorities also said they could not say if any of the nine were interrogated in any way before being allowed to board their flights, or if screeners noticed the box-cutting knives used in the attacks, according to The Washington Post, which first reported the story in its Saturday editions. Such knives were allowed on airplanes before Sept. 11.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/02/attack/main502689.shtml

[noise]

29. Gate agents?

Do we have any eyewitness accounts from the four (or more) boarding gate agents?

Also, I recall some speculation that the AA ticket agent suicide story was a rumor. Was this story ever confirmed?

[Amused Musings]

31. They managed to board the planes

via that bridge-y thing you go on. They are pretty cool. Whenever I am in a country without them I get rather disapointed.

Yes, I am 22 but I am not an adult yet.

[noise]

32. Not sure about 2001

but these days when one boards, the gate agent runs the boarding pass through their computer.

Each flight had fairly low occupancy which might have increased the chances that gate agents could recall at least one (or more) of the four or five hijackers' faces.